This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC build failed with your patch on 2001-01-09T11:35:00Z.
- To: aoliva at redhat dot com
- Subject: Re: GCC build failed with your patch on 2001-01-09T11:35:00Z.
- From: Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>
- Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:19:19 -0800
- CC: rth at redhat dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-regression at gcc dot gnu dot org, grahams at redhat dot com, jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk, mhayes at redhat dot com, neil at daikokuya dot demon dot co dot uk, osk at hem dot passagen dot se
- References: <200101091215.EAA27623@sloth.cygnus.com><email@example.com><200101091810.KAA21760@geoffk.org><firstname.lastname@example.org><200101091836.KAA21818@geoffk.org> <email@example.com>
- Reply-to: Geoff Keating <geoffk at redhat dot com>
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org,
> email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com,
> firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
> From: Alexandre Oliva <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Organization: GCC Team, Red Hat
> Date: 09 Jan 2001 16:56:06 -0200
> User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) XEmacs/21.1 (Channel Islands)
> On Jan 9, 2001, Geoff Keating <email@example.com> wrote:
> >> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org,
> >> email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
> >> From: Alexandre Oliva <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >> Organization: GCC Team, Red Hat
> >> Date: 09 Jan 2001 16:22:01 -0200
> >> I can't promise to fix all problems on all 64-bit targets. I know
> >> there are a number of 64-bit targets that already work with a 64-bit
> >> HOST_WIDE_INT; I was surprised that ppc wasn't one of them. I'm
> >> pretty sure the problem must be in the ppc back-end, since there are
> >> so many other 64-bit targets that are working correctly.
> > powerpc-eabi is a 32-bit target.
> Then you must arrange for MAX_LONG_TYPE_SIZE to be #undefined or
> #defined to 32 (as long as LONG_TYPE_SIZE isn't wider than that).
> AFAICT, MAX_LONG_TYPE_SIZE is defined to 64, and that's the reason why
> you get a 64-bit HOST_WIDE_INT.
MAX_LONG_TYPE_SIZE is or will be correct, but I still want a 32-bit
- Geoffrey Keating <email@example.com>